Barney Britton

I'm in charge of the editorial content of dpreview. I joined dpreview when it was based in London in November 2009, after several years as a print journalist in the UK specialist photographic press. I moved from London to Seattle, USA, a year later and I've been here ever since.

Comments

It makes sense that we mostly spoke about the major new product that Fujifilm had announced a day earlier. There are plenty of other Fujifilm interviews on DPR if you'd prefer not to read about the 50S.

RobBobW: In the year 2000, there was good quality film stock available at ISO 1600 from Fuji and Kodak. My fav was Kodak Ektapress 1600. Lovely exposure latitude and perfect for situations with dodgy lighting. Oh, and 8 Track was way out of vogue, having been replaced by CDs 20 years earlier. :-)

There was, but in my experience it was tricky to handle and required careful exposure and development. I never managed to get really good results out of those emulsions but then I wasn't going to pro labs at the time.

Jack Simpson: A nice read, Barney, and I know a certain fellow in the AP Forums, El Sid, who still champions the D30 :) I sold one to a mate of mine, a photojournalist at the time, based out of Toronto who loved his D30 :) …………… except when it came to shooting hockey ;)

Toselli: Are you sure the d30 could go up to iso 1600 and get good results? I remember that on my first dslr, a pentax k-7 in 2010, to have good results I had to limit to iso 1600 too, and it was more or less the same for my friends with nikon d300 and canon 50d and 7d. Maybe coming from the taste of color film there was less sensibility to grainy pictures?

Wild Light: From my perspective, Apple just needs to back off the stupid and unrealistic marketing. The iPhone is an ingenious tool for what it does, and it can do it better than a dSLR. Trying to make it do other things, and doing it so poorly is just stupid.

Timbukto: "Note: We've identified some issues with our image set from the iPhone 7 Plus and have temporarily removed these images from our studio comparison widget. We'll have them back in there as soon as we can. "

Noticed this update as well as some snarky comment pruning. Are we still in 'research whats wrong' phase, figuring out if focus has low consistency, or if the lens itself has low consistency? Or human error? If it is a dud phone lens, autofocus is temperamental, or human error, early readers would want to know more about it. As of now the iPhone 7 Plus images I still see still lag behind the 7 and other competitors.

I will freely admit that I've only skimmed your comments (it's late) but we pulled the 7 Plus images briefly because the way that we were presenting them - fields for ISO and tele/wide which were a bit inconsistent - was causing a lot of (justifiable) confusion. We simplified the data presentation, omitted JPEGs for the reasons explained above, and reposted within a few hours. No retesting was performed.